Putin outlines his moral vision for modern Russia

Changing the debate: Mr Putin believes that constantly looking back to the Soviet era is holding the country back. Source: Reuters / Vostock Photo.

Debates about whether Russia was better off in Soviet times are left behind as Vladimir Putin focuses on his country’s future.

President Vladimir Putin’s first address to the Federal
Assembly since his return to the presidency outlined his vision for the future
of Russia. He spoke of morality, Russia’s geopolitical relevance, the
importance of education for the country’s development, demographics and the
need for economic “restructuring”, a word that has replaced the out-of-vogue
“modernisation”.

He also emphasised the importance of looking at the
country’s entire history rather than only the 20th century, saying: “Russia did
not begin in 1917, or even 1991”; of resisting the threat of nationalism; and
the importance of the turn eastwards.

Before the address, sources in the Kremlin said a
significant part of the speech would be devoted to national security. Although
Mr Putin barely mentioned “defence” or “foreign policy”, his speech was devoted
to a new vision of national security.

Mr Putin reiterated what he has been saying since the
beginning of 2012 – the world is an extremely dangerous place and the situation
will only get worse. He said nobody could isolate themselves from what was
going on. The external and the internal were inseparably intertwined; one fed
the other, creating a turbulent “swirl”. The Kremlin’s foreign and domestic
policy was aimed at minimising this turbulence and mitigating risks.

Related:

In foreign policy, Mr Putin spoke about countering the
attempts of those countries that were spreading chaos and knocking out the last
remaining pillars of the old system. Russia’s position on Syria was that if you
can’t make it better, don’t make it worse. While Russia remains an influential
player in Syria, it is one of many and limited in what it can achieve. That’s
why the emphasis on the “internal-external” dichotomy, which defines national
security, is moving to areas where it has more influence and control. The
internal stability of state and society is a guarantee of national security.

Mr Putin’s address marks a move away from the post-Soviet
era. “We must look only ahead and focus only on the future,” he proclaimed.
This is an obvious slogan but it marks a significant move away from the laments
about Russia’s lost greatness that have defined political thinking for the 20
years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The debate during the post-Soviet
era was about this period: what’s better, the Soviet Union or what replaced it?
The thousand-year history of Russia wasn’t even present in the discussion.

The government is now looking for a building material for a
new historical myth, where debates about Stalin’s role, alongside other events,
become just a part of a general internalisation of the national development
process. Mr Putin’s message instils hope that Russian society will abandon
useless debates about the 20th century.

His decision to evoke the First World
War for the second time this year was also understandable: “Our predecessors
called it the Great War, but it was undeservingly forgotten and struck from our
historical memory for political and ideological reasons.” It looks like the
celebration of the 200th anniversary of the 1812 Patriotic War will be a
harbinger of large-scale events in 2014 to commemorate the First World War.

Mr Putin’s emphasis on countering nationalism – manifested
during his election campaign and reiterated in his address – suggests the
Kremlin is well aware of where the most sensitive nerve is located. The Soviet
legacy has run out there, too; internationalism and the presumption of a secular
state are no longer taken for granted and need to be defended and reformulated.

It is clear to whom Mr Putin’s words about the unacceptability of any
manifestations of nationalism and chauvinism are directed. His message that “we
will not allow the emergence of closed ethnic enclaves in Russia with their
informal jurisdiction, existing outside the country’s common legal and cultural
framework, and disdainfully disregarding the accepted standards, laws and
regulations” was aimed at Russian nationalists and those trying to form ethnic
communities in metropolitan areas. But the Russia-specific principles for
establishing this uniform legal and cultural framework are unclear.

Russia is ceasing to be an empire but, because of its
complex composition, it cannot become an ordinary nation state as other
colonial powers did after their collapse. As a result, a future Russia risks
combining the worst of both worlds. It is not yet clear whether a model that
allows the positive aspects of imperial- and ethnic-based nation-building can
be capitalised upon. There is no fitting value framework for it.

It is no coincidence that the leitmotif of the address was
morality – a notion that Russian leaders very rarely utter, let alone implement
in practice. This also represents a break with the late Soviet and post-Soviet
eras, each of which, in their own ways, distanced themselves from anything
ideal. Romantics with the ideals of the Sixties who initiated perestroika were
an exception, but their quick political demise only reinforces the aversion to
values.

Home
truths: Mr Putin spoke about the role of morality and values in Russian society. Source: Reuters Vostock Photo

During the many years of reforms, social transformation was
mainly perceived in purely economic terms; pragmatism was guaranteed to prevail
over any kind of idealism; and an accurate mathematical model was considered
more important than adequate value content. Even animated debates about “European values” had a political and
even geopolitical dimension, but never a substantial one.

Values, it seems, are turning into an ideological concept,
although the kind of traditionalism that is emerging right before our eyes
doesn’t look like anything that could give impetus to development. That’s why
Mr Putin’s messages that “Morality cannot be imposed by law,” and “Attempts by
the government to encroach on people’s beliefs and views are a manifestation of
totalitarianism… which is completely unacceptable,” are extremely important. At
least this is something to evoke when the most zealous champions of morality
from inside the State Duma start to impose moral law once again.

The return of the notion of values to political vocabulary
is progress compared to the arrogant cynicism that had prevailed before.

Naturally, the president turned to his pet subject of
demographics, reminding the audience again that to be successful in the world
“there must be more of us and we must be better”. He considers human resources
to be the true basis of sovereignty, more important than all other resource
components.

Mr Putin has also introduced the new notion of Russia’s
“geopolitical relevance”, which “Russia must not only preserve, but also
increase.” He said: “It must generate demand among our neighbours and partners.
I emphasise that this is in our own interest. This applies to our economy,
culture, science and education, as well as to our diplomacy, particularly the
ability to mobilise collective actions at the international level. Last, but
not least, it applies to our military might, which guarantees Russia’s security
and independence.”

Geopolitical relevance means the ability to build different
relations with different centres of power in the multipolar world, offering
them what they need. This is possible given Russia’s central geopolitical
situation – but there are risks. “If a nation is unable to preserve and
reproduce itself, if it loses vital points of reference and ideals, it does not
need an external enemy because it will fall apart on its own.” This thought could put an end to the
debates about the reasons behind the collapse of the USSR that have been raging
for 20 years.

It has seemed in recent years that the theory of an “enemy
plot” is becoming canonical, but perhaps something will change now.